[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Miah, R (on the application of) v Snaresbrook Crown Court [2006] EWHC 2873 (Admin) (19 October 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/2873.html Cite as: [2006] EWHC 2873 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		19 October 2006

1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: This is an application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of Mr Recorder Dawson, sitting at the Snaresbrook Crown Court on 20th September 2006, to extend the custody time limit in the claimant's case from 22nd September 2006 to 26th January 2007. The claimant faces an indictment alleging that he kidnapped, falsely imprisoned and caused actual bodily harm to the complainant on 23rd March 2006. At present, he is due to face trial in respect of this indictment on 15th January 2007 at the Snaresbrook Crown Court.
2. In view of the fact that the defendant is not represented before me today and has simply assisted the court with two witness statements from the court manager, and in view of the very proper attitude of the interested party, I think it is unnecessary to rehearse the facts in any detail.
3. The short question for the recorder was whether there was some other good and sufficient cause for extending the custody time limits. The only potential good and sufficient cause was the inability of the Snaresbrook Crown Court to list the case before 15th January 2007. It is unnecessary to rehearse the authorities which deal with the extent to which listing difficulties can amount, in certain circumstances, to a good and sufficient cause. Suffice it to say for present purposes that if one finds that it is simply a routine case and the listing difficulties are also routine, that is to say due to the normal pressure of work on a crown court list, then that is not a good and sufficient cause for extending the custody time limit. One appreciates the difficulties faced by all crown courts and the pressures that they are under, but it is for the executive, if it wishes the court system to try its citizens, to will the means to enable them to be tried in an expeditious manner.
4. The authorities make it clear that there may be exceptional reasons why listing difficulties can amount to a good and sufficient cause. But they emphasise the fact that if routine difficulties are judged to amount to a good and sufficient cause, that would simply be an excuse for a wholesale failure to comply with custody time limits.
5. I have read the two witness statements of the court manager at Snaresbrook, Mr Hill. It is plain from his witness statements that although the court is undoubtedly under considerable pressures there is absolutely nothing in this case or in the particular listing difficulties that relate to this case that could in any way be described as exceptional. That is very fairly conceded in the helpful skeleton argument prepared by Mr Hearnden on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service.
6. It is noteworthy that in deciding the matter the recorder does not appear to have addressed at all the question whether the listing difficulties were in any way exceptional. He appears to have proceeded on the basis that listing difficulties were of themselves a sufficient cause for extending the custody time limits. It is plain on the face of the transcript that that approach was in error.
7. For these reasons, which I have expressed very shortly, it is clear that permission to apply for judicial review should be granted.
8. The claimant and the interested party are also in agreement that it would be the sensible course to proceed to deal with the substantive hearing as well and to quash the recorder's decision. In my judgment, that is the appropriate course. For perfectly proper reasons, the Crown Court does not wish to participate in the proceedings beyond assisting this court with the two witness statements of Mr Hill. As I have said, they do not indicate any conceivable exceptional circumstance that might be relied upon if there was fuller argument. In these circumstances, having granted permission, I proceed to deal with the substantive matter and for the reasons that I have just set out, I quash the recorder's decision.
9. The next question is whether bail should be granted. I have a power to grant bail under section 37(1)(ii) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948. Mr Hearnden has indicated that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the interested party would not oppose the grant of bail. In those circumstances I grant bail, subject to conditions.

What are those conditions?

10. MR HEARNDEN: I am handing them up now, my Lord. (handed).
11. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: Residence at 55 Stevenage Road, London E6 2OU. Not to contact in any way the complainant. Not to enter the London Boroughs of Hackney or Islington. All those bail conditions were agreed by Mr McCrindell on behalf of the claimant. Is there anything else?
12. MR MCCRINDELL: Yes, please, your Honour. We have had the benefit of public funding, I think up to the permission stage. I am afraid to say I am not terribly au fait with the situation as far as costs are concerned, but as I understand it - -
13. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: I do not think in this particular case going further to the substantive hearing costs you very much more anyway, did it?
14. MR MCCRINDELL: It rather look that way. But as I understand it, it would be public funding assessment of the claimant's costs, my Lord.
15. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: Yes. You may have that order.
16. MR MCCRINDELL: Thank you, my Lord.
17. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: Is there anything else?
18. MR HEARNDEN: My Lord, no.
19. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: Thank you both very much indeed.